l african methodist this will church -- the oldest ame church south of maryland. we are indeed humbled that the planning committee for this historical event sought to convene at mother emmanuel, as we as a church, community, state, and world prepare for the six-month point from the journey from june 2015. a gives a somewhat comforted know that june 17, 2015 was not an event to soon forgotten by those outside of the immediate circle of the nine families and survivors, the mother emmanuel church and the church as a body. but instead, that it is the event of june 17, 2015, after too many horrific events followed across the world, have inspired so many across this community, state, and nation does not get stuck in crisis, to move forward in deliberate and strategic action.

we do look f we do look forward to today's conversation, the information to be shared on the listen to be clean at the beginning of the development of an action plan for the reduction of violence. history were prayerfully we will never again have to bury and the horrific acts of violence that occurred since june. prayerfully we will not have to read is that the event in a movie theater in lafayette louisiana, or the military recruitment center in chattanooga, tennessee. at a local worksite in virginia, or at a college cap is in oregon. at a planned parenthood center in colorado. or in san bernardino california. please know that if i or other

member can be an assistant to you, please find us. we will be glad to do whatever we need to do to provide for all of your needs. know that we want your visit here to be a wonderful one, and please consider mother emmanuel not only our home, but your home for this day. best wishes for a wonderful day. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. i'm glad you got warmed up from dr. nelson. thank you dr. nelson and mother emmanuel for allowing us to be your this morning. it is a privilege to be here with so many thoughtful people and with all of you to discuss the critical issue affecting the health and welfare of our country. i am humbled to be here at this church, the site of bravery and

grace in the face of terror and evil. guns have become such a divisive issue in america, gun ownership has been debated lobbied on, and politicized. i am not here to debate those issues. the american heart association has concentrated on how numerous effective measures to reduce gun violence could be enacted and enforced without in any way infringing on anyone's second amendment rights. it has become epidemic in america, as you just heard dr. nelson repeat what has occurred since april. more than 33,000 people in our country i from firearms. more than 23,000 of them take their own lives with guns, more than 11,000 are murdered by guns. and there are more than 5000 accidental deaths.

many suffer nonfatal gun injuries every year. children and young people are particularly prone. people under the age of 25 accounted for 36% of all firearm death and injuries. this is clearly an issue affecting the public health of our nation. the people of charleston know it all too well. and no one here or anywhere else in our country should accept these districts as business -- these statistics as business as usual. or feel they cannot effect change. the american bar association has a knowledge the damage expressing strong support for meaningful reform to our nation's gun reform. the delegates have considered and approved nearly 20 separate resolutions aimed at reducing firearm-related death and injury which have included a

variety of policy recommendations. in 2014, we put on three gun violence programs from a public health perspective, looking at gun violence as a public health problem, and addressing solutions. the aba is also involved in school programs, which include peer mediation. this program today is another step in the ongoing cooperation between medical professional organizations, but what associations, and the legal profession to focus on the toll that gun violence presents in our community and in health-related issues. and importantly, to discuss what it is that we can do about it. we do not want to leave here today without some viable solutions as to how we can curb this trend. we know that our role as the nation's preeminent legal association, we seek to educate members, as well as the public

at large, about the true meaning of the second amendment. earlier this year, the american bar association joined with the american college of physicians and other health professional organizations to issue a series of recommendations in a paper of firearm injuries and that across the state, a call to action from eight professional organizations, and the aba. it has been published in the annals of internal medicine. we have confirmed that the recommendations are constitutionally sound and do not interfere with the second amendment in any way. the paper stresses a number of points, and how related violence is a major public health problem. and we called for a more robust criminal background check for all firearm purchases. and as we look to commonsense approaches for civilian use,

manufacture, and sale of large capacity magazines which are designed to increase rapid and extended killing capacity, we need to look for solutions and make decisions based upon the best possible evidence. the american bar association believes that the recommendations set forth in this paper provide a path forward to help stem the tide of gun violence in america. more than 30 health care and consumer organizations have endorsed the recommendations so far. and we are obviously looking more in that regard. we hope that at the end of the day, that we can all walk away knowing that each of us has contributed something significant to help to reduce the incredible, extraordinary gun violence in this country. like no other place in the world. and now, it is my pleasure to introduce david clark, chair of

the american bar association's standing committee on violence. who has been recognized as a national leader in criminal justice reform. as chair of this important commission, david has helped both lawyers and the public understand the controlling law including the law under the second amendment. he has helped established coalitions for the purpose of educating the nation's communities about sensible and lawful policies on the sale ownership, and possession of firearms. please welcome david clark. [applause] david: good morning. i am david clark, and i live and practice in jackson, mississippi. i talk a lot of you. we will have other similarities that we will talk about perhaps with mississippi and south carolina. first, a couple of things.

i want to give some special recognition for helping organize this program, pull this thing off, get it done, to dean of the honors college here. and justin pole, the manager of the school of education. they have done extraordinary work in planning and assuring that this program occurred as planned. the dean and justin, in particular, fran welch, the dean of the school has helped, as well. i would really like to give a special thanks to dean and justin, if we could come up for their work. [applause] i want to mention one other thing. there will be after this program today, there will be a service

and accu medical service, in this sanctuary, starting at 6:00 -- and ecumenical service, in the central area starting at 6:00. i think it will be healing, and everyone is invited. let me give you first a brief overview of today's program. you have a lot in store for you. we start with dr. daniel webster, of johns hopkins school of public health, probably the top public health researcher and writer on gun violence in the world. we are fortunate to have him here today. this program revolves around taking a public health approach to curbing the plague of gun violence in this country. and it is so appropriate to start with dr. webster. among other things, he is professor of health policy and management at the johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health. he is the director of the johns hopkins center for gun policy and research, and other things.

professor ron sullivan, harvard law school, is the next featured speaker. but as i will mention, this program, professor sullivan's flights got mixed up, connections and things like that. he will be here, if possible after lunch. so we will probably be shifting some of the panels and speakers up a bit. and we will get to him. but professor sullivan is a leading theorist in aereas of trial practice, legal acts ethics, and race theory. he is the leader of the harvard trial advocacy workshop. without meaning to slight anyone, but running out of time i record you to look at everyone's bios on the website. i will add just a brief mention to some of the -- certain not

all of the -- regionall authorities in medicine. you will also hear from the resident of the american college of physicians. the president for the american academy of physicians. they are helping to lead to renewed effort of the medical community in seeking to curb gun violence and try to get something done about that. i speak to those two organizations in particular, we are fortunate to have their presence here on the program. we have the legal director of the gun violence center, coordinating attorney from the brady center, general counsel for the stopping of gun violence, the chair of the medical university of south carolina, the executive director of heeding god's call.

and other notables. there will be others. let me now, if i may, pose some questions to help us think. these are questions that we may have had coming in, questions that will be arising during the program. questions that we hope we can answer, a lot of them. and in this program, and also in the vast body of research, there is a huge amount of research out there. in large part, due to dr. webster and his team at johns hopkins, and others. but there is so much evidence-based research and study that has been done on gun violence and ways to help curb gun violence in different places, the effectiveness of those measures. samples of some of those are on

the website, if you go to the event website for this program under resources. you will see a number of those articles. to start off put a framework for the questions, we know gun injury and death in the u.s. is far higher than anywhere else in the developed world. by far. over 30,000 gun deaths year, over 60,000 injuries. think about this. some of those debilitating, horrible injuries. 30,000 plus 60,000 -- that is about 90 a day. 90 every day. we think of mass shootings, we do not think about the 90 a day deaths from guns in the u.s. more people have died in the u.s. just in the last four years

then the american -- than the number of american soldiers that died in korea, vietnam afghanistan, and iraq combined. think about that. korea, vietnam afghanistan iraq combined. four years. take the four years before that. it is stunning. why does this happen? does it have to happen? why do the murders occur in this church almost six months ago? why colorado, minnesota, san bernardino, and others in the last week? to say nothing of sandy hook. and so many others. 22 children plus the teachers at sandy hook, but about that number of children die every day in this country from gun

violence. why are south carolina's gun violence rates, like my own state of mississippi, so much higher than most other states? there will be some handouts, i think they are being copied, they will be in the back of the room later this morning. just indicating, it is something we do not about in a state like mississippi or south carolina, how high the death toll is from gun violence. we cannot stop all of the gun death. we know that. but if there are things we can do to stop many of them, shouldn't we try? don't we have to try, if there is something we can do? 20%, 50% that is up to 15,000 lives a year just for that reduction. what about public health research on the subject? what does existing research and the gun violence, causes and effects, tell us?

does such research point of factors, including laws, that influence the levels of gun violence in different states, and different societies? what does the research show that happens to the level of gun violence including violence by criminals, when gun safety laws are passed? does research showed that the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of high-risk people make a difference? you laws make a difference? that even criminals respond to gun safety laws? and if that is what all of the research says, and concludes why do some people keep saying laws cannot help? they will not make any difference. do more guns mean less violence? we heard that from some. what does the very there a viable, real research that shows

having guns everywhere reduces gun violence? or any kind of violence? if there is no such evidence what should we do when we are faced with that more guns claim? guns in the home. does keeping a gun in your home really protect you, really make your family safer? would it make a difference to you if all of the research and legitimate studies on that question reached the same conclusion? and what if we encourage or require people with guns in the home to store the guns securely, where children's and other vulnerable family members could not accidentally or impulsively use them? smart balance, what is the feasibility of smart guns? guns that can only be fired by a certain person, certain fingerprint, certain palm print.

only by that person. if smart guns are not only feasible but could be made available, why are they not available for purchase? who could be opposing the sale of such smart guns? the second amendment -- the second amendment is something as paulette said, we feel a certain obligation in the aba to speak out about. there are so many that are saying things that are so untrue about the scope of the second amendment. it is what our supreme court say it is. it is not what somebody on their own, contrary to the court says this is what i think is my second amendment right. you are stepping on them. there are legitimate concerns that gun safety laws violate rights. what does the supreme court say?

what do we do when the courts have said almost all measures to control gun violence are constitutional? yet, a vocal group continues to say every restriction related two guns violates my second amendment rights? what does it mean when certain groups still mount challenge after challenge to any regulation of gun sales or possession, even though about 95% of those challenges have been rejected by the courts, following the supreme court decision? do most laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of high-risk people even have anything to do with the second amendment? much less, violate somebody's rights. public opinion and polls what does it mean if substantial majorities of the public in poll after poll say they support universal background checks and other reasonable measures to

keep guns out of high-risk hands, the wrong hands. but legislation from congress will not take up the issue. what do substantial majorities of gun owners, themselves, what they say the same thing? if the numbers come in, and there will be a very recent november poll, some of the results put up in the back later. why can we not do anything if a substantial majority of everyone of gun owners republican gun owners, say they want to do summit about it? let me mention this. you have noticed it has been talked about a lot. and we hear about that ground checks. let me put this in context. background checks are required for purchases from federally licensed gun dealers. those are including recent

research, about 60% of initial gun sales. those have background checks on the. that does not mean that someone will not catch a forged id. it happens all the time. but what about that other 40%? that means that somebody can buy a gun in a federally licensed gun shop, walk right aboround the corner, silica somebody else. no questions asked, no id, no background check. why is it that neither -- one of the things that has been asked you will be hearing about this, it is called universal background checks. that just means expanding the background check from that federally licensed dealer to all gun sales -- gun shows and private gun sales. why is it that neither federal law nor south carolina law, nor

mississippi law, prohibits a person who is on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun? who could possibly challenge that? but it is being challenged. and you know that the usual suspects. why is it the same politicians who demand tougher background checks for all syrian refugees, now it takes about two years also oppose any background check for anybody buying a gun? the race and guns, who suffered the most from gun violence? what group in our society knows from first-hand experience why keeping guns out of the wrong hands, and the hands of wrong people, is so important? what would lawmakers -- why would lawmakers not agree on a provision that provided background checks must be completed and passed before a

person may buy a gun? that is not the law now. if they have not completed it in three days, they can sell the gun. whether it is to a terrorist convicted felon, or whatever. this, of course, is something that you and south carolina in charleston know in particular, because the three days had passed dylann roof in buying the gun used in this church. although he should have been prohibited from buying the gun. research, why is are not more research by agencies such as the centers for disease control into the causes and possible remedies for gun violence? we know that certain groups oppose any funding for any research into gun deaths and violence, such as research by the cdc. what is the resistance to research? to knowing more about the problem?

what is the logic there? ask them, after congressman why is the gun industry, through his influence on congress, so opposed to the cdc being allowed to study the causes and effects of gun violence? even when it is more deadly, gun violence is more deadly than other types of injuries the cdc does study. does this all have to continue? are we doing anything? there was an off-ahead by nicholas kristof -- op-ed by nicholas kristof that said we are not even trying, not pushing hard enough. what can we do? we cannot prevent all gun deaths, we know that. what can we do to bring down the risk, bring down the numbers?

for the invitation today, before the program begins, we are fortunate to have rabbi stephanie alexander here in charleston. a congregation found in 1749, this is one of the oldest jewish congregations in the u.s. and it is a knowledge and recognized to be the birthplace of reform judaism in the u.s. rabbi? [applause] stephanie: good morning. friends, let us pray. oh source of wisdom, resolve and power, as we gather today, a diverse and determined cross-section of this great city we dedicate ourselves to the primary task you have set

before us all. not just today, but every day. to safeguard the health and well-being of our community. body and soul. as we learn and reflect strategize and deliberate today grant us the wisdom to see with focus and clarity how the proliferation of gun violence threatens every part of our well-being. confirm our resolve to reject the status quo that steals blameless lives and terrorizes innocent souls. solidify our power to shape a new reality, one where fear yields to hope, acquiescence becomes courage. violence gives way to peace. a modern-day isaiah might tell us to beat our handguns into

plowshares, our rifles into pruning hooks. but today, let us aspire even higher. as the israeli poets has written, do not stop after beating your weapons into plowshares. do not stop. go on beating and make musical instruments out of them. whoever wants to take life again will have to turn them into plowshares first. friends, let us pray but not too long. more crucially, let us act. and if you are so inclined, i invite you to say amen.

>> good morning. my name is daniel webster. i am a professor at johns hopkins and direct the center for gun policy and research there. it is a great honor to be with you today. to be in a sacred place and to talk about solutions to gun violence. i have a tall task. i have to, within about a half of an hour, encapsulate how you apply public health to a problem like gun violence. i actually do this in a nine-week course. [laughter] so, if you miss anything here, you can sign up for my class.

it starts in january. i would love to have you participate. i cannot really see my slides, are they up? ok. so, i am going to start mentioning just some basic information about the public health impact of gun violence in america. but not really dwell on that. i will show you a lot of numbers, but each one represents a life. and we cannot lose sight of that. there are far too many, as was indicated, we have more than 33,000 a year in the u.s. who died by gunfire.

what most people do not realize is that almost two thirds of those are by suicide, which the very preventable type of death. we have over 11,000 homicides with guns per year. when you look at gun violence, you see very few that are self-inflicted. why is that? because the vast majority of time, someone is so desperate to attempt to take their life, when they have ready access to a firearm, they succeed. but the vast majority of non-fatal injuries from firearm violence in the u.s. are from acts of violence against one another, criminal acts of violence. but to get some perspective on what this actually means on the

public health of the population, you can begin to get a feel of this when you look at leading causes of death for males. i should say right out of the gate that gun violence in america is very much a amelmale phenomenon. we could spend the whole day talking about that. but for young males ages 15-24, it is the leading cause of death. for the age group just above that, it is the second leading cause of death. we in public health no that there is really no -- know that there are great disparities for a vast number of reasons. the second leading cause of that disparity, for men is firearm

homicide. so it has enormous impact on the health of the population. particularly male populations. of course, females are very impacted, not only as victims and survivors who have lost loved ones. i want to now talk about public health. what does public health bring to this problem? when i started as a doctoral student in public health at johns hopkins in the late 1980's, it was a time where gun homicide, particularly involving youth, was really skyrocketing -- it was going up at a rate we had never seen before. and public health rose to the challenge then. and quite honestly, i think there were a lot of good ideas and perspectives the public health brought at that time, i

think we were kind of feeling our way around. what does it really mean to approach this as a public health problem? i think we have come along way since then, but i still think we are struggling. some individuals, some colleagues want to talk about the public health approach, more in terms of what it is not -- which is it is not a law enforcement or criminal justice type of approach. it is one that is rooted in prevention in changing conditions and communities and families. but i, for one feel quite strongly that law enforcement -- the right type of law enforcement is very consistent with public health approaches. and with the right type of law enforcement, we have had very substantial gains in a number of important public health ics

crises, including drunk driving. sorry, i am a little bit -- i am not able to see my slides. let me mention some key models, in essence, of how to think about this problem that comes from public health. i think we start from our long tradition of studying risk. at thehow risk changes and is different across different demographic groups different spaces and times. and how they are connected to one another, how your risk is quite connected to the individuals are you closely associate with. thank you. [laughter]

another important perspective that public health is brought to this is the focus on what people in injury control, which is where i kind of grew up in public health, referred to as the agent -- the agent of injury. and here, of course, we're talking about guns. what can we doo make guns less lethal, make them less available in high-risk context? a very productive way to look at this problem that has been adopted by criminologists, as well as in public health, is to recognize how gun violence in particular acts like a social contagion. it quite commonly looks very much like an infectious disease. it populates among close social networks. it will escalate, just like an

epidemic of an outbreak of an infectious disease. very commonly. and at the appropriate time with appropriate interventions, also reduces at sometimes for a some earlya similarly rapid manner. it not only gives us insight in how we might prevent gun violence, but also gives us hope about that downward slope. finally, as i mentioned before, we have a long tradition in public health of applying laws to protect health and safety, to create safer environments. and i think that is clearly needed if we are going to have a large impact in the u.s. and we are also going to have to be able to change social norms with the right type of persuasive measures. and again, we have had great

success in a number of different domains and public health. we need to try to apply those to the problem of gun violence. i will now just sort of walk you through some examples. but first, to sort of layout how i envision what i think was mentioned earlier, how do we visualize a different reality of where we are now with gun violence? for me, it is not actually that hard. and i think that we have actually been conditioned to believe that gun violence is not solvable in america. we see on such a regular basis horrific acts of gun violence, it is not hard to find it every single day. but we cannot see, we cannot see when effective policies and programs are put into place and the people are saved, that act

of gun violence was prevented. that does not show up in our news. we have to apply the right kind of research to examine whether we can see reductions when we applied some of the principles that i just talked about. when it comes to gun policy, i believe that we are going to make the biggest gains in reducing gun violence by applying two key -- attending to two key values and really. gun ownership, this is something we will delve into much more in my panel following this discussion. i believe that our standards for legal gun ownership are too low. secondly, the idea and accountability -- the value of accountability. our gun laws, by and large, at the federal level and at many

states, including south carolina, are written by people with interests in reducing accountability. reducing accountability. background checks is the most glaring example, it is not the only example. so i will talk about how we address accountability more to reduce access in high-risk context. the other way we're going to do this is to address and change social norms particularly in high-risk groups and context. and then finally, very focused focused law enforcement, that is year towards deterrence, which is in public health terms prevention. let us start with thinking about the standards for legal gun ownership. we published a study in 2012 where we look at a large

database of surveys of inmates at state prisons. and we look at the 13 states with the weakest standards for gun ownership. to determine the individuals who were incarcerated for committing violent acts with firearms, were they prohibited at the time -- legally prohibited -- from possessing a gun at the time they carried out that act? what we found, i think might be surprising to some 40% of those individuals were legally y prohibiteklly prohibited. this pie chart, which looks at who is prohibited and was not any state in the u.s. -- the yellow slice. but 29% of those would be

legally prohibited by the standards. if you think about the capacity for background checks as an example, as a way to reduce gun violence, think about how much greater impact you can have looking at this simple pie chart when you combine the black slice of the pie to the red slice of the pie. underlying this is a really important thing which we cannot lose sight of, the epidemiology of homicide. what you are looking at now, and i'm sorry you will not be a but to see the numbers on the bottom axis there, the age of defenders. these are age-specific offending rates. what you see is incredibly rapid rise during adolescence, which peaks at the age of 18-20. it declines after that quite

substantially, particularly after 30. the risk becomes reasonably low. so, much of that slice of the pie -- that red slice of the pie -- actually had to do with individuals who are in this 18-20 range and could legally possess firearms in some states and not in others. and in others, another part of that, were individuals who were prohibited temporarily because they had committed serious acts of violence as juveniles. it is a concept we will come back to in the panel. when states had expanded their prohibiting conditions for having firearms, to address broader areas of risk, we commonly see reductions in violence as a result. when states prohibited individuals from having firearms

when they had a restraining order for domestic violence, studies we published have shown significant reductions in partner homicides between 8% and 9%. when california extended firearm prohibitions to individuals convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, they saw a 29% reduction by the offending group. in a study published in a book that we put out in 2013, jeff swanson and his colleagues at duke, found that when the state of connecticut expanded and put the records in the system, so that individuals who were prohibited because of serious mental illness emm that the infecteds, the infected group was cut in half.

finally, another study found that when you compare over time and across states, as they started to expand the type of conditions for which they were screening and prohibiting people, you saw greater reduction in gun homicide. so, accountability measures, how the world we keep guns from people who should not have them, at least in rarely? that is the real conundrum here. i want to talk about, first, a very important conduit. how do guns get to criminals? well 99.99% of guns used in crimes start out from an initial sale from a licensed gun dealer. and what we know is that the common place of diversion, quite often, is right at that nexus -- right at that initial retail sale. a very small percent, a very small percent, account for the

large majority of guns used in crimes. the vast majority of license gun dealers seem to be law-abiding and careful individuals. it is relatively rare they sell a gun that is used in crime. that is not the case for roughly 5% or less that account for the lions share of guns used in crime. we have now published two studies that looked at undercover stings a problematic gun dealers, when they have made blatantly illegal sales, they were sued. in some cases, criminal charges were brought. and what we found in chicago reduction in the diversion of guns to criminals from in-state dealers -- 62%. a very similar approach in detroit yielded us 36% reduction in the version of guns to criminals right after retail sales. shortly afterwards.

and in new york city, where we had slightly more specific regulations, we were able to look specifically at the dealers were targeted with the lawsuits. and in the new york city case, new york without asking for a dime. what they asked for was to change the way you go about selling firearms. they had a code of business conduct. 82% reduction in the probability that guns sold by these dealers later ended up in crime in new york city, 82%. accountability. another example many may have seen in the news, a gun shop outside of milwaukee recently in the news with a lawsuit relevant to an illegal straw purchase that lead to permanently disabling two police officers.

that gun shop had a long history. i have been involved in researching it, back in the late 1990's, the atf published research showing that no gun dealer and the entire nation sold more guns that were later recovered in crimes then badger, right outside of the law. simply acknowledging that, simply announcing that publicly led those gun dealers to change the way they sell their firearms. and i will show you that graphically in just a moment. subsequently congress came once again to the defense of problematic gun dealers and passed a set of amendments that, in a variety of things, to shield the gun dealers from anybody knowing what they were doing. i will show you what happened from that. they eventually lost their

license in 2006, but that was then headed over to a family member that, again led to them getting sued. this will be hard to see, for some in the back but what we are tracking here is a versions of guns to criminals right after a retail sale. and the solid line is for badger guns and ammo. the first of vertical line is where the announcement that they sold the most guns used in crimes. and we documented a 77% reduction in guns going from badger into the hands of criminals, following simply acknowledge that. in the gun dealer is voluntarily making steps to improve their business practices. but when they were given protection, along with many bad apple gun dealers in 2003, we documented that there was a 200% increase in the flow of guns coming from badger into the hands of criminals, after

congress gave badger and other gun dealers that protection and lack of accountability. two other case studies i will tell you about that are very important for public policy. two changes in state laws that mirrored one another, in which background checks -- universal checks as david clark explained -- but through a permitting process or you had to go through local law enforcement to get yoururent to get your handgun. they decided to reveal that law. so rather than either go to a gun shop, excuse me, rather than go to the local law enforcement first, you went into the gun dealer or you found somebody online or some other way or there was no background check.

what we documented, i don't have time to go through each of these bars but this tracks the proportion of guns that ended up being used in crime very shortly after retail sale. and they correlate perfectly perfectly to win this law changed. you saw a twofold increase in these diversions, shortly after a retail sale -- a diversion of a gun to a criminal. similarly, we tracked here is the percent of guns used by criminals that originated within the state of missouri -- the red line -- versus the yellow line of guns that originated from other states. this correlates again perfectly from when they change their law so that guns became far more readily acceptable to criminals within missouri.

this graph shows you the difference in missouri's gun homicide rates minus the rest of the united states. and what you can see here again is the very abrupt change that coincides perfectly with the change in them getting rid of background checks and permit to purchase system for handguns. roughly, the difference is about a threefold difference from what it was during the years just before, versus after. and what we have concluded from our analyses is that if you just look at the first three years you see a 25% increase in gun homicide associated with this law. only very recently, within the past month, we extended out to 2013. and we found an 18% increase that is very highly statistically significant. and we rolled out a very long list of alternative excavations

for this increase. we have also documented a 16% increase in suicides by guns. the mirror image of this experience occurred in connecticut, back in 1995, october of 1995. they adopted country has a background check requirements, universal background check requirements, for handguns and we estimated a 40% reduction in homicide rates in which a firearm was used. no change in homicides by other means. and in a separate study also published this year, we documented a 15% decrease in suicides with guns associated with that law change in connecticut.

briefly, i want to talk about a very important public health model now goes under the brand name of curve violence. with a background. what this program looked like is it identifies the most high risk places and the high risk individuals for being involved either as a victim or perpetrator of gun violence and do outreach to those individuals, with individuals that they refer to as credible mess somewheres. these are individuals who typically are from those same communities and previously had some involvement in gangs or crime. but had turned their lives around. one of the key things that they do is they serve as role models for how you deal briefly, with conflict without using a gun and they

helped to mediate disputes between individuals or groups, gangs, crews, whatever you want to call them. so they can be resolved without loss of life. i've studied this program in baltimore. we've seen great success with that. not in every single sight but in most we've seen reductions in either homicides or nonfatal shootings or both. i'm just completing some analyses looking over a dozen years in baltimore of a variety of kind of interventions applied there,

i refer to this from david kennedy who has had an enormous impact on how we approach and try to prevent urban gun violence through a very similar process of first identifying of where the risk lies. quite often it is connected to networks of individuals and they do call-ins to confront those individuals to say we know who you are. if you don't stop it you will go to jail. but we would rather not put you in jail. what we would like you to do is simply stop shooting each other. what's important with this model is it is not only a model coming from law enforcement. it is a message coming from community. more voices of community from these individuals almost all guys respect. also i should say that these

individualings are also offered a variety of services in assistance to leave their lifestyle so that they are not at risk for being involved in gun violence. and in recent iterations of this model there's also much more attention paid to legitimacy of police. so it's done in a fair manner, applied in a fair manner. no intervention has consistently reduced gun violence as much as this when the model is applied to try to curb much as this model. so in 7 of 8 studies reviewed, fairly large effect in reducing gun violence. just the selling of illegal drugs, the effects have been much less although there was some suck -- of illegal success in high point, north carolina with

such a model. i am going to conclude there because i want to make sure at least i have a few minutes for some questions or comments. do we have any? go longer? ok. i'm doing good. so just to summarize very briefly again. the most important thing, most important take away is there are things that work. ok? gun violence, levels of gun violence are not -- is not something that we don't know how to address. we do know how to address these. these are very cost effective approaches. gun violence has enormously high cost to our society aside from the loss of lives. our biggest public health and societal impact is what has

been referred to before, it's terror it's fear. we alter our lives. when we apply these measures, whether they're a policy to keep guns from dangerous people or other measures, as behavioral measures through public health or complementry measures with focused deterrence we see significant reductions in gun violence. these are all approach that is have high acceptability in about 45 minutes, a discussion about immigration with our guest, the chief policy

editor of mourning console. -- morning consult. we discuss underdog politics the minority party in the house of representatives. ♪ host: it is thursday, december 24 december/2015. welcome to washington journal. we will spend the first 45 minutes or so looking at headlines and items in the news as we look at images around the nation's capital. as people prepare for christmas eve services across the world our question would be about your religious views and do they impact your political views? here is how to join the conversation. republicans call guest: 202-748-8001. democrats